Practice question
An offender arrives intending to rob a victim. To accomplish the taking, the offender kills the victim before seizing the property, and the taking is then completed. All required elements are established. The defense says robbery with homicide is impossible because death preceded the physical taking. Which is correct?
- The homicide may occur before, during, or after the taking if the required prior robbery design and connection are established.
- The victim must always die only after the property reaches the robber’s home.
- Every killing before a taking necessarily has an unrelated motive.
- The robbery intent need not ever be proved.
- Physical sequence alone makes the offender immune.
Legal references
- People v Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, en banc main decision, Article 48 and composite crimes: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/apr2016/gr_202124_2016.html
- People v Esugon, G.R. No. 195244, June 22, 2015, main decision, robbery with homicide as composite crime: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jun2015/gr_195244_2015.html
- Revised Penal Code, Article 48 as amended, text and current two-branch rule reproduced in People v Reyes, G.R. No. 260030, May 19, 2025: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/may2025/gr_260030_2025.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.